Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Good piece, Paul. I can hear the corporatocrats and their minions in Washington and elsewhere choking on their caviar over that one. They’ll be calling you a communist. They want us to think that their way is the way to prosperity for all (wink wink).

Corporations keep many people employed.

However, they (especially the publically traded corporate giants) are indeed out for themselves. After all, if you get tired of your 2-3% pay raise each year…they’ll hire someone else (there’s always someone else to hire in, who will turn into you in 10 years). Why’s that so bad? Because these FAT CATS are getting 15-30% pay raises (not counting their stock options). Usually 15-30% of their salary amounts to a rather large percentage of the combined salaries of the work force they employ.

Don’t get me wrong. There are some good corporate neighbors/employers out there. They are becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Our society isn’t much different than one we had hoped to avoid and indeed fled from so many years ago. We have our own Nobility with all the money and power and our wealthy clergy who in turn influence those who have power.

If you are an average Joe living paycheck to paycheck you can forget government representation. That is something you must now buy…but, like I said….paycheck to paycheck.

From the beginning of history until about 1700, people’s standards of living improved hardly at all. The King of France was a rich guy with a lot of power, but your physical standard of living is higher than his was.

I know that some people see the past as a simple golden age, but they are misinformed about history. Try living in a simple village, on the same food, with the same fuels and you will understand why life was nasty, brutal and short until recently. In 1700 almost everybody lived like the poor of the developing world.

The only reason we don’t have periodic famines, the only reason we can reasonably expect our babies to live to adulthood, the only reason you and I have the leisure to read and write these blogs is productivity. You called it growth or efficiency. We can argue about how to divide up the wealth, but before you divide it, you have to produce it.

Some of the things you mention as problems of growth or efficiency just are misdiagnosis. You can raise profits, for example, by paying workers less, but you are not more efficient. You are more efficient when each worker produces more. You are talking about something else.

Ever travel to former Communist countries? They didn’t have the profit motive. The plants and workers were ludicrously inefficient. They couldn’t grow their economies and their environmental were so horribly degraded that I don’t think anyone has seen anything like it profit and growth obsessed America.

You diagnosed the wrong problem and offered the wrong cure. Your problem is with distribution.

As for your description of the free market, I really have to wonder about your point of reference and experience with business people (besides on TV)

Jack,

“The only reason we don’t have periodic famines, the only reason we can reasonably expect our babies to live to adulthood, the only reason you and I have the leisure to read and write these blogs is productivity.”

No friend, that’s called science.

“We can argue about how to divide up the wealth, but before you divide it, you have to produce it.”

My problem is not “distributing” wealth. My problem is that the wealthy seem to be the ONLY folks with political clout now. Don’t believe me, Offer a lot of cash to the DNC or RNC with your hot-button issue and see how far it gets you. The common man is lost in being represented by the politicians. Most political contributions come from corporations or leaders of corporations. It buys votes, it changes law, and its wrong.

Jack,

When a corporation earns money they distribute it. When a CEO gets much, much, much, much, much, much, more of that percentage than the worker….is that right? If you were on the production floor earning $25K/year I’m sure you wouldn’t think so. Especially if you had been with the corp. 15 years and the CEO 2 or 3.

Look, I realize these guys are a necessary evil, but when they can gain access to a congressman because of who they are and I can’t; that’s NOBILITY and THAT’S wrong.

That’s the problem - lack of comparison.

You don’t like places with growth, markets etc. What do you think of places without them?

Let’s see, how about Korea. We have two sides of the same country. The North doesn’t believe in profit or markets. It used to be the rich part. Now it is one big concentration camp. You won’t find any N. Korean blogs because the Internet is illegal. Most (not some) children are suffering from malnutrition. Even when they produce almost nothing useful, they manage to pollute their environment.

Wake up. Think of what you are advocating. If you want to – and you have the power – you can make everyone poor. N. Korea proves this. Pol Pot put it into practice. Robert Mugabe is busy implementing it now. But you can’t make them all rich without growth and productivity.

Tom

My comments above were not aimed at your post, which came in as I was writing.

I think CEO pay is too high. That is a distribution issue. We can agree on that in principle. Paul thinks this problem results from growth and efficiency. That, I bet we both agree, is the wrong analysis and the wrong prescription.

The problem with growth as a measure is that it tells you very little about what sustains that growth. That’s why bubbles are such a subject of discussion. We want to know whether growth is equal across the board, or whether it’s top heavy. This is an important measure for economic progress because growth is only so sustainable an maintainable as people’s ability to become more productive.

Many of today’s businesses are measuring things with false or narrow definitions of efficiency. Efficiency always depends on what you are doing. If your idea of efficiency is having fewer employees per dollar earned, then you can only get more efficient for so long before you end up bumping up against the practical limits of what your work force can do. If your idea of efficiency is divorced from any sense of what your business does to earn its money, and the moral issues thereof, you might profit and grow in your business, but store up ill-will and potential lawsuits among your customers. Healthcare is a great example of this. Their rules and regulations have created wonderfully profitable situations, but at the cost of patient care.

True efficiency must be defined both by purpose and capability. True growth comes from substantive improvements in productivity, as well as the fulfillment of the purpose of the business. Sadly, today’s businesses are focused on economic abstractions, and not even to the benefit of the smooth operation of the company.

Tom
We are writing past each other.

Productivity is science in practice. There is no contradiction. You can get only so much from hard work alone. After that you need better techniques and better technologies.

People in 1700 on average worked a lot harder than any of us. In fact nobody in American works like these guys did. Most of us only work up a real sweat (even most blue collar workers) when we are working out for pleasure or health.

Back in 1700 all that hard work got the average worker enough just to survive. Most of us wouldn’t last two weeks working under their conditions. They literally wore out their bodies by the time they were 40, if they lived that long. (If you want to see such conditions in action, however, you might take a look a N. Korea.)

Stephen,

Nicely stated and I agree, especially with your last paragraph.

Jack,

I think you are correct. We are writing past each other. What do you think about what Stephen wrote?

Tom

I think we need to look at longer time periods. Year to year growth figures are less significant that decade of more periods. If you look at longer periods, you see the average person become better off. I know people like to deny this, but look around.

I grew up in a blue-collar middle class household. We didn’t own a car. Cars people did own were unreliable. We never went on vacations more than 100 miles from home, and usually not that far. We also never went anywhere we couldn’t stay with relatives. Hotels were out of the question. We had primitive appliances, a black and white television, no computers, no DVDs, no I-pods. Some of these things hadn’t been invented yet. A long distance call could cost the equivalent of $100 in today’s money. Nobody we knew flew on airplanes. We burned coal in our house. You had to shovel it in every day and it was really dirty. Nobody had been to Europe (except at Uncle Sam’s expense). This was what everyone had and it wasn’t that long ago. America is twice as rich as we were a generation ago. Maybe the workers didn’t get their fair share of the growth, but they got more than they had.

I don’t disagree with Stephen, but we are talking about different things. Efficiency and productivity give a society the possibility to do things. A society without growth or productivity has no options. But having the option doesn’t mean making the right choices. Efficiency is a necessary, but not sufficient part of a good society.

Jack,

I agree things have gotten better. I grew up in a similar fashion as you (we did own a VERY old car and burned wood instead of coal. Cutting , splitting, and hauling it wasn’t fun either). The wealth of the nation has grown. My problem is not the growth but the power. I know money has always been power, but it is affecting our democratic form of government.

Corporations and wealthy individuals use their wealth to make public policy. This is becoming a society where the laws are passed by the wealthy and for the wealthy. As a result we are becoming a nation who purpose is to live by their laws. Most of those laws are to ensure they keep their wealth. Hell, our justice system even displays the disporportionality. Wealth buys good attorneys otherwise you may be appointed an overworked, underpaid court-appointed public defender.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything wrong with people being wealthy. Hell, I wish I was. My problem is that they are becoming a Nobility of sorts. The only ones with the eyes and ears of our leaders are wealthy entities (our leaders are also becoming part of the nobility). Does that sound democratic to you?

Tom,

Corporations and wealthy people have always influenced policy. However, these days there is an even worse enemy to the political process. They’re called ‘the groups’.

These are PACs that have more money by pooling several donations instead of just a single person’s wealth. They have become corporations of their own, of a sort, in existence simply to alter politics. Most business corporations are just not that interested or have the free time to spend doing the number on the government as these PACs have.

This is why we need to stand by the constitution and ensure individual rights are not trampled. It’s the only way we can keep a voice in what is going on, before the PACs from either side are the only one’s heard. And why I fear we are close to that situation now, the internet and blogging has come along at just the right time to give voice to those of us disnfranchised by the big two and the groups.

Paul,
You’re advocating broad-based prosperity, rather than growth which is restricted to large corporations. Sounds reasonable.

Is the Bush administration attempting to encourage growth in the form of tax breaks for corporations, instead of encouraging broad-based prosperity? Wouldn’t surprise me. The Bush adminstration’s economic policies have been a disaster for our country.

We’ll be in a recession this time next year.

Look at the yield curve; if Greenspan ends his term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve by presiding over four more 1/4 increases of the Federal Funds rate, and 10 year Treasury notes remain at approximately the same levels, the yield curve will be inverted by the end of this year; and an inverted yield curve is a very reliable indicator of an approaching recession.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration economic policies have failed to generate jobs in the US. This is the heart of the matter, and we’re on our way to going thrombo.

As Greenspan has noted, wage increases are providing mild inflationary pressures; but it’s not the bottom 75% of wage earners that are seeing wage increases; the increases are restricted to the top 25% of wage earners, the ‘supervisors.’

US corporations are generally profitable right now, and the economy is growing @ 3.5%. This corporate growth is being fueled by outsourcing. The rewards of this growth are restricted to a small percentage of Americans. Without job creation in the US, our consumer-based economy will not be able to sustain growth, never mind prosperity.

In other words, the growth we are seeing is not resulting in ‘prosperity for all.’ The benefits are not trickling down- the benefits are trickling out the economy, in the form of tax cuts & tax-free giveaways, and out of the country entirely.

The inability of the stock markets to go up, and the low worldwide long-term interest rates are telling us this; due to the gross incompetence of the Bush administration & the Republican party’s policies, we’ll be facing the opposite of growth, and the opposite of prosperity for all, and we’ll be facing it soon.

Many of your observations are right on, Paul.

“Prosperity for all” is a naively idealistic view of how things should be. All attempts at that (communism and socialism) have failed. Growth, on the other hand, while it may have its “growing pains,” is actually achievable and with greater benefits than draw-backs. By the way, without growth, just where would we be today?

Constantly writing off socialism as a basic evil in the world seems to deny some of the elements of socialism that our own society has come to accept. What, like tax breaks for corporations isn’t a form of socialism? These companies wouldn’t exist without some of these government kickbacks, and yet we blindly call socialism an evil. So let’s go back to the time when there was no government intrusion in the private sector and watch what happens; I can only hope it is a Republican that pushes through that reform, because it will be the last time a Republican gets elected for the next 50 years or more.

I see much to be desired in the economic ideas floating around here, especially with the reductionist good vs. evil rhetoric which implies that growth/efficiency/productivity serves only billionaires whose only goal is turn workers into “serfs.” It’s a LOT more complicated than that.

For one thing, workers are also consumers. This point has been totally missed in Paul’s formulations even though it’s huge and has wide-ranging ramifications.

Small, medium, large, very large and mega-multinational companies exist because WE buy their products and services. And we do so because we see benefit to ourselves in doing so. If we truly were powerless “serfs” we wouldn’t have disposable income and those corporations—even the big multinationals—would wither and die overnight.

An example: all of us here have only mangaged to afford these computers we’re sitting at because companies found cheap, easy and efficient ways of producing them. And yes, this involved all kinds of outsourcing, layoffs and general economic upheaval that hurt (at least temporarily) the very same workers who probably went on later to buy these computers themselves. That’s just a fact.

Nobody ever designed or built computers (or for that matter marketed or sold them) out of the goodness of their hearts.

If manufacturing computers was done only to keep people employed (to continue with this example) instead of efficiently creating a better and cheaper product, then where would we be? I personally wounldn’t want or be able to afford a 5 ton mainframe in my living room!

Unfortunately, life isn’t fair and workers will always suffer as a result of these changes. We should try to help workers make the necessary transitions (as Clinton always said—by expanding educational opportunites). Not by railing against growth and efficiency.

Paul says “the greater the productivity, and so the efficiency, the fewer workers are needed by the company. Therefore, from the company’s viewpoint, laying off workers is a good thing. But the employees don’t think so.”

Well, perhaps the workers don’t think so, but without the transformations which lead to greater efficiency, productivity and change, large percentages of the population would still be working (to use just two examples) on the railroads and in steel mills. And then they’d go home to houses without plumbing or electricity. The fact is that the economy changes, sometimes rapidly, sometimes making entire industries obsolete, and if companies don’t change, they die. And then they employ nobody at all. The world isn’t going to stop for anybody’s 401K or health benefits. It’s rough, but much of the progress of history has been even rougher. Think of all those horse-shoe makers and thatch-layers who lost their jobs when there was no such thing as unemployment or Medicaid! Let’s not pretend that this is a new phenomenon.

I don’t hold pure supply-side ideas of how the economy should work, mind you. We should help the poor. We should ease the burden for workers caught in the middle of change. But I find this remark totally naive: “Haven’t you ever wondered why a guy who is a billionaire wants to make more money. The answer is simple: he wants power. He is the lord over the serfs who work for him. He contributes some money to politicians and he becomes the lord over the rest of us who are not working for him. What power!”

If you really look at the actions of those billionaires who try to influence politics, you see that they’re usually doing so for the benefit of their industries and their own bottom line. It’s not to excercise some kind of all-encompassing Satanic grip on their workers’ bodies and minds just to have power for power’s sake. I’m not saying they’re always behaving ethically because they’re often not. But it’s far less insidious than it’s being made out to be.

Take Bill Gates, for example. He’s made billions upon billions and he keeps doing what he does. Is it because he wants to rule over all of us with an iron fist? I seriously doubt it. To me, it looks like a combination of an oversized ego and a very genuine kind of dorky belief in making the world of science fiction a reality.

One more point, and then I’ll end this over-long post: where, really, is the wealth of billionaires? Sewed up in their mattresses? Locked away in a vault where they dive in it like Scrooge McDuck?

Nope. Billionaires are truly greedy individuals. For that reason, they invest their money to make it grow. If you get a home loan, an educational loan, if you start a business or even if you have credit cards, then their money is likely IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT or went to buy something you want or need.

Zeek,
Although enforced equality through communism or socialism has not fared well, the attitudes of those in power, and respect for their workers, can make things better for everyone. I just moved from Hershey, PA, where Milton Hershey is practically worshipped. He paid his workers fairly, built theatres and parks for them to enjoy at no cost, and provided houses for all of his supervisors upon completing a term of service. During the depression, he used his own personal fortune to provide work in the form of buiding projects, becoming one of the only employers in America to increase wages and not lay off a single worker.

What’s my point? It is possible for employers to respect the people that work for them, not just to treat them like expendable “resources.” I’m sure that Hershey’s generosity got in the way of his bottom line, but considering how well the factory is still doing (and the ever-increasing waistlines of America), it didn’t hurt him too bad, and he built a community like few others.

Is growth important? Absolutely? Is the focus on growth worth the degradation of the American worker, the exporting of their jobs, and the ever growing gap between rich and poor? I don’t think so. You don’t have to advocate communism to say that workers have value, and that a totally profit-driven society may not be a sustainable one.

Jack-
What I imagine is that there are always going to be those who figure out something important, or get a bead on how the system work, or who are simply in the right place at the right time, and those people will earn more money than the rest of us, perhaps deservedly so, perhaps not.

Regardless, though, pervasive improvements in society only come along when people are willing or obligated to give something back. In this day and age, I have less faith in people’s willingness to give back. Too much of politics nowadays is relaxing the rules that keep people from cheating money out of the system, and/or those that obligate them to provide for those they employ to build their fortunes with.

Fact is, an economy cannot grow at the top forever without collapsing. If capitalists are not willing to pay their workers enough to survive, insurance companies are unwilling to provide people with the freedom to regain health for the premiums they pay, and the government is not willing to work for justice on the side of those without individual power, then the system becomes one wrapped around the strange attractor of the elite.

The benefit of the few cannot long be the goal of a country of the many. We cannot depend forever on the quality of the elite’s loyalties. At some point the gains of progress must be shared, and people must be rewarded for the hard work and sacrifice they pour into their lives. That’s not communism, like some on the right would suggest, that’s the free market at its very best. Sooner or later, people will start to ask, why do we continually forgo our rewards, only to see these people prosper at our expense. I think too much of today’s growth is a result of miserly habits of business, not enough the result of ingenuity and the satisfaction of the customer.

Sanger,
“Small, medium, large, very large and mega-multinational companies exist because WE buy their products and services.”

And who are “WE”?

There is a general, widely-spread, naive belief that capitalism, markets, and free trade favor America.

While capitalism, markets, and free trade may be very desirable from a global perspective, these are only systems. These systems do not necessarily work in the US national interest.

India’s economy is growing @ 7%. It’s workers are well-educated and willing to work for a fraction of what a US worker demands.

If, over the next two decades, the entire Fortune 500 somehow relocate their headquarters, factories, and services to India in the interst of corporate growth, adherence to the ideas of capitalism & free markets, well, what do you think? If that is the most effective way for a company to grow, the absolute best capitalist solution, what then? Are you still a capitalist?

Is averaging the per capita income of Indians, Chinese, and American workers an acceptable solution?

Phx8, we live in a global economy. And I agree that this doesn’t necessarily favor America.

“Favoring” America is not only selfish but near-sighted and ultimately worse for America.

I think it’s naive to think that Americans can or should eternally enjoy greater economic priviliges than workers in India, China or anywhere else. We can’t expect to have higher standards of living while everybody else lives in squalor. How can you argue on behalf of “equality” for workers while saying that American workers deserve everything and the rest of the world can just suffer?

Hopefully, we can eventualy ALL have a higher standards of living. India’s growth does not necessarily equal our decline. This needn’t be a zero sum game, and it’s not a matter of choosing “capitalism” or “socialism” anymore. Anybody’s free to choose socialism—as the French have, and then watch as unemployment soars and companies flee.

But to go back to an earlier point: this idea of the growing “gap between rich and poor” in America is more myth than fact. When you adjust for inflation, the Rockefellers, Guggenheims and Carnagies of old were far richer than our currently wealthiest individuals. Bill Gates, our wealthiest current individual, comes in at eleventh all time. And our poor of those earlier eras were literally in danger of starving and/or being killed in dangerous filthy industries (which offered not only poor benefits, but NO benefits).

Paul Krugman, to cite an icon of popular leftist economic thinking, constantly points out that “real incomes” (dollar amounts adjusted for inflation and buying power) of working class families have gone down 22% over the past thirty years.

But this is a ridiculous distortion of the facts.

Krugman and others who insist that that the gap between rich and poor is widening totally ignore the high percentage of single parent families today verses thirty years ago. Of course one person is going to make more than two! This is comparing apples to oranges.

If you compare—in real terms—the incomes of married couples thirty years ago, the average was $46,723 in 1973 to $62,281 today. That’s over a thirty percent increase in real terms.

This is readily available Census Bureau data. If you’re just looking at your tv (your high definition tv?) and seeing how much some executives are making in comparison to yourself, you’re likely missing the big picture. No pun intended.

Change is scary, no doubt. But it’s unavoidable, and right now things still look pretty good for American workers.

Correction: I meant that one person is going to make LESS than two.

sanger,

“If you’re just looking at your tv (your high definition tv?) and seeing how much some executives are making in comparison to yourself, you’re likely missing the big picture.”

There was a time when those TVs had little stickers on them that said “Made In The USA”. Look around, you aren’t going to find that little sticker anywhere, except on goods that only very few can afford.

With the exporting of manufacturing jobs to India and China, for example, the employees that once held those jobs can only afford to buy the goods manufactured in those countries.
Textile jobs have gone to those countries, as well as Indonesia, Thailand, and the Phillipines.
Auto manufacturing, GM is losing market share at a frightening rate. The 25,000 people that they will lay off in the next year aren’t going to be able to help “grow” the American economy. They will be competing for jobs with teenagers at MacDonalds.
Who would have thought thirty years ago that the quality of a Japanese, or Korean car would have surpassed that of an American. Yet that is what happening.
American steel was once second only to Germany in quality. Where have those jobs gone?
Home TVs and stereos, once were the envy of the world. Where have Marantz, Fischer, Scott, RCA, gone to be manufactured?
Computers are assembled overseas with some parts made here.

Without real jobs American workers aren’t going to be much help supporting those “Golden Parachute” executives.

sanger, you said: “If you compare—in real terms—the incomes of married couples thirty years ago, the average was $46,723 in 1973 to $62,281 today. That’s over a thirty percent increase in real terms.”

You are ignoring one very fundamental fact of historical statistics. 30 years ago, a majority of families in America were one wager earner families. Today, one earner families by the stats above make only $31,140. The fact the married couples today largely reflect two wager earner families is how we arrive at the $62,281 figure. Now that is apples and apples.

My father, a welder in Detroit, in the 50’s and 60’s, earned enough at Ford and Kastle Steel to buy a 5 bedroom 2 story house, own a good car, and provide his 7 kids with the basics for school, and some extra-curriculars as well as his stay at home wife a new dress and a night out dancing and drinking a few times a year. That level of consuming power by a single wage earner welder today in the US is not even possible. And that is oranges and oranges.

And that is what real wages are all about. Consumptive power to achieve middle class status on a wage dollar basis.

Sanger said: “Nope. Billionaires are truly greedy individuals. For that reason, they invest their money to make it grow. If you get a home loan, an educational loan, if you start a business or even if you have credit cards, then their money is likely IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT or went to buy something you want or need.”

1) Whether they are truly greedy or not, is up for debate. Look at Bill Gates and George Soros. They both give huge amounts of money away to help the cause of others. Like I said, that is up for debate, and good luck on getting a large enough sample of them to take a greed survey to determine if they are in fact more greedy than the rest of us, though, I would doubt it.

2) They do invest. They invest in multi-million dollar homes and estates and are they making a killing these days. Of course, if the housing bubble busts, they will also be large losers. But what did they lose? Unless they just purchased the home or estate shortly before the bubble burst, they will be losing appreciation, not actual dollars paid for the original asking price 5 or 10 years before.

They invest in jewelry, paintings and art, and other collectibles like fine furnishings and historical furnishings. Somewhat risky investments, to be sure. But, what’s the point of being wealthy if can’t take a few risks?

3) They invest in bonds, and stocks and fixed earning instruments. Now, here is where you think you scored some points, and you did, but not as many as you think. Their investments which remain here in the US do, as you say, become principle for loans to others. But, increasingly, wealthy investment dollars are not staying here in the US. Increasingly they are going to overseas investments either directly, or indirectly by way of multinational corporations.

Since we are a net importer nation, (just set a new high on the trade deficit which has been growing ever larger for the past 2 decades), you can’t argue that the whole aggregate of that money invested overseas comes back to the US via foreign imports. So, what happens when the money of wealth goes overseas?

The net of it not balanced by exports, gets subtracted from our GDP, our tax base, and our economic infrastructure. Since the wealthy don’t feel that pinch, guess who suffers those losses to our GDP, our tax base, and our economic infrastructure? That’s right, the not wealthy. And that my friend explains part of the growing gap between the wealthy and the nots.

And power has its own rewards. The tax cuts on the wealthy were cut, as health care costs for everyone spiral in an inflation no one today really wants to talk about. As more toll roads are planned and under construction. As decades of fee for services are implemented for previously non feed activities (national parks and trash pickup for two examples). The federal government is transferring ever more economic burden upon the states in its failed attempt to control deficits, and the working people and property owners are getting squeezed the hardest by such increases in state taxes to make up the difference.

Where is the motivation the highest to spend 1 or more % of ones income on the lottery which governments advertise and propagandize as great for their citizens via funding of state coffers? Yes, right, the poorest wage earners (suckers that they are).

So though your argument has merit in that wealthy dollars in part become principle available to the rest of us for loans, it is countered by the fact that a growing percentage of wealthy investments are not benefitting Americans here in the US, and it is a trend that will not slow given globalization of multi-nationals and the “Flat World” Friedman speaks of eloquently in his new book.

I watched a TV special the other night. It was a Wal-Mart bashing program that showed the plight of overseas workers. It was pretty sad seeing people making 17 cents an hour, sharing a 1 room home with 5 other adults, eating onion soup every day.

There are no poor people in the USA. There may be some who live under terrible conditions, but except for those with mental conditions, they do so by their own choice. Most of our poor today are addicted or mentally impaired. ((Side note: Most of you idiots want to legalize more drugs e.g. marijuana))

A lady called our office last winter, she was crying, her daughter needed a coat and it was cold outside. She was driving somewhere, I don’t remember where she said, but it wasn’t to work. Since she was in a car, I could assume she was talking to us on a cell phone. When she finally told me “hold on I got another call” I hung up.
You need to buy your kids clothes before you buy a cell phone or Cd player or Crack or cigarettes…..and so on.

The USA is a place where you can succeed if you try.

If a corporation gives money to a politician and the politician helps makes laws that help the corporation, is that wrong? Okay, if you walk around the country and raise money from 25 million poor people, and you give this money to a politician and this politician helps to make laws that help poor people, is that wrong? Aren’t they the same thing? If pro abortion groups give money to Hillary Clinton and she fights to keep abortion legal, is that wrong?

The US open (golf tournament) was just held last weekend. Why does Tiger Woods get so much money when some of the golfers get very little? Wouldn’t it be better if they took all the money and split it evenly among everyone? Not just golfers, but everyone. It doesn’t matter that Tiger has been playing golf since age 2, or that his father worked 1000’s of hours teaching him and helping him practice. it doesn’t matter that Tiger put in years of personal effort, what is best is that everyone is happy, so lets all split his earnings.

If you drop out of school and get a factory job after 20 years of working there, except in some very special cases, you’re not going to be the boss. What is most likely is, you’re going to be doing the same crappy job that you were doing 20 years ago. When that company hires a new CEO, who 30 years ago, went to college, started out as a junior exec, the VP, and later ran a couple companies of his own …don’t think that just because you were there for 20 years that you are worth more than that CEO. There are plenty of High school drop outs to fill your place.

Most of you when you hear CEO, you think of ENRON or WORLDCOM. (companies that stole under Clinton and are going to jail under Bush) Many CEO’s are well worth their pay. There are more that are like Lee Ioccoca (Sp) (saved Chrysler) than there are that are like Lay (Enron).

Remember the old saying that if you are not a socialist when you are twenty, you have no heart and if you are still a socialist when you are forty, you have no brain.

That is because experience teaches some things about how things work. Everything has to be run by somebody. People who advocate government control sometimes miss this point. Government control means political control. A politician is not necessarily a more moral person than a businessperson and he may have less incentive to make the system really work, as opposed to seem to work for two to four years. And that assumes he is interested in his constituents, which may not be the case.

We have developed a free market system in the U.S. and the West that works very well. The government is involved in business every day, but its role is limited. Business, government and society exist in a balance. The balance is uncomfortable and there are many mistakes, but considering the alternatives (the “isms” like socialist, communism and fascism) it is bliss.

Another thing experience teaches is that a lot of the “good ideas” you think you thought up, other people have thought of before and sometimes are working on them. Sometimes they don’t work and that is why they are not being done. Why can’t we all just get along and love each other? Why do we need prices? I don’t know, but we do.

Paul-

Growth is more of an indicator than a goal. And I think that our free market economy has done a pretty good job at obtaining prosperity for all. What other model has done better?

Whenever the profit incentive is missing, the probability that people’s wants can be safely ignored is the greatest. If a poll were taken asking people which services they are most satisfied with and which they are most dissatisfied with, for-profit organizations (supermarkets, computer companies and video stores) would dominate the first list while non-profit organizations (schools, offices of motor vehicle registration) would dominate the latter. In a free economy, the pursuit of profits and serving people are one and the same. No one argues that the free enterprise system is perfect, but it’s the closest we’ll come here on Earth.

Walter E. Williams

James
Do you really believe what you write, or are you just a plant to stir up the blog?

It’s very easy to blame the victims. It’s a way for those who haven’t been victims yet to feel that as long as they keep doing what they are doing they will be safe.

Have you ever been poor, or helped out someone who was? They didn’t choose to be that way. Family medical conditions and factory downsizing are the major causes of low income in this country. These situations create cycles of poverty that are VERY difficult to break out of.

Most successful people had someone in their life that guided them in their educational and career choices. James, imagine yourself today if the five most important people in your life never existed. You would be different. Poor, incapacitated or uneducated parents have difficulty making their children aware of their choices. How can you make the best choices when you don’t know what is available?

Economic growth is obviously a good thing. But when the gap between the poor and rich is growing, job growth is pathetic, and good blue collar work is largely unavailable, it sickens me to see analysts on FOX telling me that the economy under GW is great. The way we measure economic prosperity must include all members of our society.

BTW, I’ve known many poor people, and none of them were drug addicts. All of the drug addicts I’ve known have had money.

Brian,

It is possible for employers to respect the people that work for them, not just to treat them like expendable “resources.”

I never said that wouldn’t work. I only said that setting the nation’s goal as “prosperity for all” is naively idealistic, which IMO, it is.

Treating your workers “respectably” doesn’t mean everyone is going to prosper.

Some prosper, some dont. If you took all the money in the world and divided it up equally, within a matter of months some people would be rich, and some would have pissed it all away. Why? Because some people simply don’t care. Yes, whether we like the fact or not, some people ARE actually lazy and frivolous. They will never be “prosperous” because they dont care enough to work for it. We have a public education system. Some go to college, some go to jail, some dont go anywhere. It’s nature, not something you can fix by throwing money at it. This “cycles of poverty” business is apologistic nonsense. And I say that having grown up Rural Poor…not even a movie theatre, a television set or a bicycle. Of course, the latest social fashion is that we are all supposed to be “victims”…THERE ARE NO VICTIMS, ONLY VOLUNTEERS.

Loren,

Are there really plants in here that just stir up the blogs ?

Actually, I grew up in HUD housing. If there are some of you that don’t know what that means, then you should not be allowed to converse in this blog, because you have no opinion.

I’m not rich Loren, very far from it. But, here in the USA, we do have the best system on Earth and even though I’m not rich, I can admit that. Go somewhere sometime and LOOK. I’ve been to 5 continents (All minus Austrailia and Antartica) and I have seen no place better than the USA. Is it perfect, no.

Let’s talk Social Security. It is the classic wealth theft scheme. The vast majority of people never get close to what they could have in the market. Remember it is 12% (6%=your pay and 6% employer match) of your pay for 40-50 years.
My mom worked her whole life and she gets 580 dollars a month. Loren, you ever tried to live on 580 a month? Try it this month.
The government says I’ll get 2000 a month when I’m 70. That’s crap right now (24K per year), think how much 2000 per month will be worth 30 years from now. And if I die at 69, they keep it all…12% of all the money i ever earned gone, instead it should go to my children. But, if it went to my children, they would be less dependent on the government and they wouldn’t need to vote for democrats

The only reason we have SS is becuase democrats know that poor people vote for them. That’s why we have schools that allow people to graduate when they can’t read (keep them dumb and poor and they’ll vote for democrats)

I’ll say it again, the only way you can beat the rich is by dragging them into the streets and lopping off their heads. (the way the french did it) Otherwise, no matter what you do, they’ll be rich.

James,

I’m glad to hear that you have some understanding on the subject. Whatever you did to get out of HUD housing and into the life you have now, it took guidance. No one is self made. Many poor are poor because they think that’s all they are supposed to get.

As for SS, it was created at a time when people like you and I wouldn’t have had anything else. I am willing to admit that it may have outlived its usefulness, and I’d never try to live on it. I’m a teacher, and I have a good retirement plan, thanks to the UFT, that left wing organization looking out for me.

I love this country. It gave me the opportunity to make something I’m proud to say I’ve become. I have been very lucky. In my job, I look out for those who need an education, and I provide life guidance. I think my govt should do at least that much for everyone. In the whole scheme of things, its a pretty good investment.

Loren,

There is just so much to say and I’m tired

The prosperity of our country depends on there being a good relationship between a person’s labor and their rewards. This is what makes our system work. If you take away the rewards, then you get a nation of people who care far less for the quality of what they do, or the quality of other people’s lives.

Today’s jobs issue are not the result of free trade. They are the result of the ugly hybrid of robber baron capitalism and command economy employed by China. They artificially shift their currency and supress the wages of workers, while wielding protectionist trade policies to prevent goods from our country from finding a market. From what I hear, China is not the only example of this kind of policy.

For the sake of a ephemeral condition of low cost manufacturing, this government and many of the largest businesses in America are hamstringing the competitiveness of our goods overseas. We cannot call what we’re after here a free market if we’re among the few actually playing by the rules of such a system.

We cannot always be looking out for China’s interests and those of the corporate elites. At some point, we have to look out for our nation’s interests.

I read all your comments and I feel good. Almost all of you discussed the issues in a reasonable way. I have a few comments.

Some of you said that technology and capitalism led us to a greatly advanced quality of life. Definitely. I’m all for technology and capitalism. I feel, however, that the guy doing the work should get more of the reward. This is not “distribution.” This is fairness.

One or two of you said that there are good employers. You bet there are. But in recent years business has attacked unions fiercely and made their employees less secure. With the lack of labor clout, businesses have been pushing for more money for themselves at the expense of their employees. There is a chasm now between business and labor.

Personally, I think business is going against its own best interests. Give all employees a fair wage, one that will enable them to live on, and both business and labor will profit.

A point about PROSPERITY FOR ALL. I’m not against growth. I’m against it being the primary goal. I’m for building prosperity that can be shared by all. Of course, this will never happen, but it is something to shoot for. This is no more ridiculous than shooting for 100% growth per year.

Paul-

Unlike the discussions above I might add!

But what is a “fair” wage? As long as it was a voluntary exchange between empolyer and employeee, isn’t any wage a fair wage?

In the end capitalism, and yes that dirty word greed, causes all boats to rise. It is the best way to acheive “prosperity for all.”

there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.â€
-Milton Friedman

While your comments have some value in a philosophical vein, it is also true that the administration is faking the growth numbers in order to exaggerate them, an increasing trend that means today’s “growth” is of the same character as what they called “stagflation” in the Carter years. For instance from Jan 2001 to Jan 2005 they say the economy grew 19%, or 10% after subtracting inflation. However, we know that the money supply, the historic source of “inflation,” grew 23% by the narrowest M1 measure in the same period, 29% by M2, and 32% according to M3, the broadest measure. So how did we have money growth of over 20% and inflation of only 9% during four years? The answer is they changed the way they count inflation. If they counted it by 1980 standards, we would have had zero growth, or negative per capital growth, and 20% inflation. While calling “growth” a false god, we shouldn’t be trapped into conceding that they have provided growth, because they haven’t.

Paul,

I feel, however, that the guy doing the work should get more of the reward. This is not “distribution.” This is fairness.

I disagree. Employers should only pay as much as they can without their employees quiting and employees should only work as hard as they can without being fired. Otherwise, all you’re doing is subsidizing someone else’s living. I think that it is important to note that “fairness” is not necessary for someone to succeed in life.

My dad, for instance, came to this country with $0, yet today he has a home that most people can only dream of owning. Was it fair that the first 30 years of his life were spent toiling in another country, all the while trying to come to America? Nope. Yet still, he succeeded where others failed.

That’s why I think the idea of “fairness” is such a crock. Forgive the cliche, but, life isn’t fair.

I’m not against growth. I’m against it being the primary goal. I’m for building prosperity that can be shared by all.

That sounds rather like Socialism. If everyone would just mind their own business, they would be fine.

This is no more ridiculous than shooting for 100% growth per year.

Actually, yes it is. See, while 100% growth per year is actually possible, prosperity for all is not. Prosperity for all is really just another way of saying that everyone is sharing the misery.

- Employers should only pay as much as they can without their employees quiting and employees should only work as hard as they can without being fired. -

What a tiresome philosophy. I’ve worked with people who seem to believe this, and they put more energy into avoiding work then I did just doing it.

There are fair employers. You can tell them because their employees stay the same. In retail this means they have a clue about where anything is. They aren’t the cheapest, but the quality is often better.

leftofcenter,

“What a tiresome philosophy.”

My apologies, I didn’t mean to have a “should” in my statement because it isn’t a philosophy, that’s the way things are.

So what I should really have said is: Employers should only pay as much as they can without their employees quiting and employees should only work as hard as they can without being fired.